ALL SCI-FI

Bud Brewster · Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:54 pm Post subject:

The first two pictures seem to have exactly the same left and right boundaries, Butch. Other than their relative sizes being different, they look identical.

What's the picture of the Id monster close-up intended to show? That needs a little, 'slainin', Lucy. Very Happy

Nice work on the comparison of the 1701 and the C-57-D! It gives me a better appreciation for the sizes of both ships.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

Robert (Butch) Day · Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:53 pm Post subject:

I should have been clearer in my post.

The "double picture" is from the site you posted. I posted them just to show the current DVD and BD. They are the same picture. I don't know why DVD Beaver posted them that way. I posted the other picture because on the Criterion laser disk the shot in the DVD Beaver "double picture" shows those rocks to the left and just a bit more to the right.

Sorry.
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common

Brent Gair · Mission Specialist Joined: 21 Nov 2014 Posts: 469

The "double picture" is because the beaver is posting screen caps from two different DVD releases (in addition to the Blu-ray release).

FORBIDDEN PLANET had two DVD releases. There was the original release which dates to the earliest days of DVD from the year 2000 and there was a second "Ultimate Edition" DVD release in 2006.

Beaver posts the same image from both previous DVDs and then from the BD. Because the DVD screencaps are of the same frame with the same dimensions, they are nearly identical (but there are subtle differences). So it's not really a double picture...it's two very similar pictures.

But I'm not sure what we learn from the laser disk picture you posted because it's a different scene shot from a different angle. I'd need the see screencaps from the same scene to really know if there was a difference (I was never into Laser Disc so that's nothing something I can do).

Eadie · Galactic Ambassador Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 1695

It's the best I could do as my laser disk has some sort of copy protection.

orzel-w · Galactic Ambassador Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 1876

Brent Gair · Mission Specialist Joined: 21 Nov 2014 Posts: 469

One point I've made many times over the years is that people become fixated on watching TV screens instead of images.

There have been countless common and popular theatrical and TV aspect ratios over the years; 1.33:1, 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1, 2:1, 2:20:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1 and more.

But when some people see blacks bars, they assume they are being short-changed. The look at the edges of the TV screen. Then they look at the black bars. Lastly, they look at the image.

In the days of 4:3, TV I remember people going ballistic about black bars at the top and bottom of TV screens. My thought was, "Just wait until we have widescreen TV and you people will go ballistic about the black bars at the side of the screen".

Rule 1: LOOK AT THE IMAGE; NOT THE TV SCREEN. After a while of learning to pay attention to the image, black bars become a non-issue. That's a tall order for a lot people.

Bud Brewster · Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:34 pm Post subject:

I read somewhere (maybe from Brent) that certain widescreen movies had "TV prints" made specifically for airing those movies on the old TV sets.

These weren't 4:3 "pan and scan" versions of CinemaScope (etc.) movies filmed with anamorphic lenses -- they were prints made of the regular 35mm frame from films NOT filmed with anamorphic lenses.

The widescreen versions were created by cropping the 35mm image to produce the 16:9 aspect ration for movie theaters.

That's how we ended up with DVDs like this one --

-- which allowed people to select "fullscreen" or "widescreen" when they watched the movie (as it proudly says, right on the box).

Back when I still had a CRT television, I always selected the fullscreen version for this movie, because it filled to old Sony 32" HD television, with no black bars at all. The widescreen version, of course, had black bars top and bottom.

As I mentioned, the movie was not filmed with an anamorphic lens, so the widescreen theater prints were created simply by omitting the top and/or bottom from the 35mm image.

As a result, the fullscreen version for the DVD just used the entire 35mm frame, nothing omitted. That meant, of course, that we see all that extra stuff the cinematographer didn't really want to show.

However, the fullscreen version offers pictures of the Ymir that are very different from the ones in the widescreen version -- and sometimes that's a genuine bonus.

Consider these examples. Here's the widescreen (theatrical) version.

Here's the fullscreen version. Notice how much more of that gorgeous creature we get to see. The sides of the image are exactly the same, but the extra at the top and bottom shows us more of Harryhausen's amazing Venusian -- including all of that writhing tale!

The same is true on several other scenes, and the difference is striking. Like this one.

This scene of the Ymir atop the Colosseum looks better (I think) with the extra part at the bottom. It adds to the sense of great height.

Perhaps the best example is this scene. Here's the widescreen version --

-- and here's the fullscreen version, showing the lower part of the creature's torso and the platform he was on. It looks great!

Guys, please don't think I'm disregarding the director's intent or the cinematographer's composition. I'm just commenting on the way we get to see extra areas that include Harryhausen's animation.

To be fair, the extra areas at the top and bottom definitely look like superfluous space in this scene from the elephant/ymir fight.

But if they ever create an IMAX 3D version of this movie, this would look just fine on that big screen.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

Brent Gair · Mission Specialist Joined: 21 Nov 2014 Posts: 469

Yes...TV versions of non-anamorphic films are usually "open matte"

Matting is the process of taking a full 35mm frame and covering that part of the image not intended for theatrical projection. For TV, the portion covered by the mattes is removed or "opened" for viewing on a 4:3 screen.

Some films are "hard matted". That means that they are matted in the camera with a mask that prevents the full 35mm frame from being used. These masks cannot be opened for TV because the film area covered by the hard mattes is never exposed. It's blank, unrecorded film.

Films were commonly matted at the projection stage...right in the theater. There were actually small, metal aperture plates placed in the projector. These aperature plates would have the aspect ratio engraved. For example, a plate engraved with "1.85" would be used most of the time.

The correct aspect ratio should be shown on the film leader so that the projectionist, but not the audience, could read the correct aspect ratio for projection. It's also no secret that some projectionists were a bit lazy and just left the 1.85 aperture plate in the projector all the time.

Robert (Butch) Day · Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:50 pm Post subject:

We used to rent those movies on 16mm. They were even shown at school!
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common

Bud Brewster · Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:38 am Post subject:

larryfoster · Space Ranger Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 104

An interesting-shaped (Jupiter 2-ish) new launch building for India's spaceport...

17 March 2015
"India to build new launch pad, plans for crewed launches"

http://sen.com/news/india-to-build-new-launch-pad-plans-for-crewed-launches

At long last... a Jupiter 2 that is big enough. Wink

_________________
Tired of waiting on NASA to adopt Flying Saucer technology! Sick of human political-representative government! I want 1970: COLOSSUS (The Forbin Project) A.I. - as World Control government! Providing flying saucer tech, "For the betterment of man."

orzel-w · Galactic Ambassador Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 1876

larryfoster · Space Ranger Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 104

Anyone else think that the Jupiter 2's laboratory could use a better microscope?

Perhaps one with stereo optics?
http://modellaboratories.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/microscope.png

Or, how about an electron-microscope... to really see those Priplanus microbes?

http://ex-sheffield.org/soloparaingenierosnet/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/attachment54.jpeg
_________________
Tired of waiting on NASA to adopt Flying Saucer technology! Sick of human political-representative government! I want 1970: COLOSSUS (The Forbin Project) A.I. - as World Control government! Providing flying saucer tech, "For the betterment of man."

Bud Brewster · Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:58 am Post subject:

Totally agree, Larry. And the good news is that microscopes now display images on HD monitors -- digital microscopes -- so that everybody in the room can see them, and so computers can enhance the image in various ways.

That makes a lot more sense than tiny eyepieces each person has to peer into. And with the emergence of 3D technology, eventually there will be no need for stereo optic microscopes.

Wow, I love living in the future! It's so . . . so . . . modern here! Cool

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

larryfoster · Space Ranger Joined: 19 Sep 2014 Posts: 104

Anyone else think that the Chariots' big rotating radar 'dish' style antenna...

...should be replace with a modern low-profile rotating 'bar' style antenna - like those on boats?

_________________
Tired of waiting on NASA to adopt Flying Saucer technology! Sick of human political-representative government! I want 1970: COLOSSUS (The Forbin Project) A.I. - as World Control government! Providing flying saucer tech, "For the betterment of man."